Happiness For Blessing

This is the third year that I've reviewed all of the movies nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture, but the first that I haven't dedicated a separate blog post to each one. I'm rather busy, what with the job and the upcoming baby and all. Oh, and did I mention that I now blog for a real website?

In any case, I did watch all 1o movies again and I've provided a short (in most cases) review for each one. In my opinion, this is one of the strongest years for nominees in recent memory, and I honestly liked all of them. The reviews, therefore, can sometimes take a negative tone, but that's because I'm nitpicking. I've ranked them all from #10 to #1 below. All you have to do is follow the jump.

This concludes my review of all the movies nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards this year. Click here to view my final ranking.

If I had to sum up my criticism of The Blind Side in one word, it would be this: Caricature. Everything is overdone. Teachers at Michael Oher's teachers dismiss him for no apparent reason, save for one brave soul who dares to do her job. Leigh Anne Tuohy's rich lunch buddies have zero depth. Their racism stops just short of being rally-worthy. The football coach is horribly portrayed as a gutless idiot. Sandra Bullock's Southern accent is atrocious. There's a comically bad recruiting montage, complete with juvenile-level acting from actual college coaches. (By the way, why is Nick Saban shown recruiting Oher to Alabama? He was actually head coach of the Miami Dolphins at the time.) There's a scene (shown in all the previews and on the late night shows) where Mrs. Tuohy interrupts practice to inspire Michael to pretend the quarterback is her and he is to protect him as he would her. The scene is praised because it captures the psyche of the Southern woman so well. It does, but are we really supposed to believe that Michael is so dense that this is what inspires him to play great football?

There were positives. I don't mean to imply that there are not. While I do believe that Sandra Bullock's accent was over the top, she absolutely nailed the mannerisms of a Southern woman, as I noted above. Jae Head was absolutely great as the adoptive little brother SJ. The framing of the story was fine. Overall, though, TBS suffers from campiness.

It's really a shame, because the true story that lies behind the movie is inspiring and deserved better treatment. I heard many people, especially Christians (there are many references to "Christian duty" in the story, and Michael is placed in a Christian high school), lauding The Blind Side as a quality family-friendly movie. I hate the false barrier that many try to place between the "Christian world" and the "secular world," but if it exists, I don't think we're doing ourselves any favors when we try to sell mediocrity to secular society as quality. The main reason The Blind Side fails, in my opinion, is that there is virtually no ambiguity contained in the story. There is a tendency in the mainstream Christian movement to avoid shades of gray, and this is where our credibility is in question, because there is gray everywhere. 2.5/5

The Hurt Locker is a rare war movie in that it doesn't seem to have an agenda. Its primary message, "War is a drug," is explicitly stated at the beginning and hammered home throughout the entire film.

I see this primarily as a good thing, by the way. Most recent war movies delve too heavily into the "Should we be there?" question, rather than acknowledging that we are there and dealing with the issues at hand. THL wastes no time. One of the bigger name actors in the movie is cast into the role of a soldier that dies in the first 10 minutes. I imagine that some people weren't fazed by this, but it rattled me. From that point on, it seemed that no character was guaranteed to make it to the end of the movie, making the already well-shot and focused bomb-defusing scenes even more tense. There are plenty of memorable scenes, the best one being at the end where the protagonist stands in the grocery store looking at a wall of cereal boxes. How is it possible that this world and the world the rest of the movie is set in are compatible?

I have seen the tight cinematography listed in reviews as the major strength of The Hurt Locker, but to me it is the cat-and-mouse game that is played between the bomb makers and the bomb defusers. Each bomb is more complex than the last, and the interesting thing is the Iraqis will stick around to see whether or not they win. This exploration of the tactical game is rare in war movies.

I think where THL goes awry, though, is when Sgt. James reaches his breaking point. It's hard enough to believe that a three-man explosives team like this exists in the first place, but I was willing to overlook this until James makes his bad decision, and then the whole thing fell apart as unbelievable to me. There is absolutely no way that there is no CO that he reports to. The only consequence of his action was that the affected party cursed at him a little. In the large scheme of things, this inexcusable scene bumps this movie down from an all-time Top 10 war movie to merely an above-average one. It's that big of a deal for me. 4/5

I haven't posted my reviews for The Hurt Locker or The Blind Side yet. I have seen them; I just need to write them up. They will be posted later tonight or tomorrow. I wanted to get my rankings up before the actual ceremony, though. This the order that I personally rank them, not a prediction.

1. Inglourious Basterds
2. Up
3. A Serious Man
4. Avatar
5. Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire
6. The Hurt Locker
7. An Education
8. Up in the Air
9. District 9
10. The Blind Side

You should know this up front: I'm a sucker for well-done Biblical allusion. A Serious Man takes the story of Job and applies it to a Jewish man in 1967, and the result is a wonderfully deep tale that questions the role of God in our affairs.

Nothing is going right in the life of Physics professor Larry Gopnik's life. He uses pithy illustrations about cats to teach complicated physics problems, then gets frustrated with a student when he focuses on the illustration rather than the math behind it. When the Junior Rabbi uses a similar hokey analogy to try to explain why everything in his life is going bad, his frustration goes. Larry doesn't "understand the math" behind why Hashem isn't bailing him out of his situation. At one point, he is standing on his roof trying to get better reception on his aerial antenna (brilliant symbolism), when he notices his neighbor sunbathing naked. Sound familiar? There are at least a dozen other allusions, and none of them seem forced or extraneous.

The most poignant is Larry's feeble quest to speak with Rabbi Marshak, the oldest and wisest of the clergymen. Like Job, he is turned away. In A Serious Man, the protagonist can see into Rabbi Marshak's office and tell that he isn't busy, but he is told there is no time for him to be seen. Eventually, Larry's son Danny is the one that is allowed to go in and speak to him, and the Rabbi is surprisingly not as serious as you might think. (The title is also spoken in the film about another character, but it works on many levels.) Marshak finds meaning in a Jefferson Airplane song, but whether or not Danny appreciates the Rabbi's attention or interpretation is in question.

I want to step aside and think about the son for a minute. I think that on one level, he is the key to the entire story. Larry is without a doubt the protagonist, but much of his final acceptance is based on his relationship with Danny. For that, I am very grateful for the way the Coen Brothers treated his part of the story. On the other hand, I absolutely hated the Bar Mitzvah scene. I read somewhere (can't find the link) that the idea of a kid being high at his own Bar Mitzvah was the original idea that the screenplay came from, but it seems like the script evolved enough that this scene came from a completely different movie. I thought it was wholly unnecessary, and so were Danny's friends that ride the bus with him. Maybe there's a way that they fit in that makes sense, but I've been thinking about this movie constantly for three days and it continues to bewilder me. In fact, I don't think I've been so internally conflicted about the quality of a movie before.

My conclusion (subject to change) is that A Serious Man is a brilliant movie that gets bogged down by a couple of extraneous plotlines, but it's still very much worth a viewing. The ending shot alone (a whirlwind, which some people claim whispers right before the credits roll) is worth the experience. 4.5/5

I didn't want to give Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire a chance. From what I knew about the plot (a girl with a bad home life is redeemed by education), I had seen this movie before. I was partly right. There's not a whole lot in the story that differentiates it from the crowd of inspirational movies of the same ilk. There's a teacher who goes out of her way to give Precious individual attention, even though she's been left behind by the system. A social worker and a nurse fill the same roles, and because of them Precious gains the confidence she needs to take care of herself. Much of her motivation comes from her new child. It's the same old stuff. And you know what? It's a decent story. Why else would producers green light so many films with that same plot?

There are two things that make Precious stand out from all those other cookie cutter movies: the first is the way director Lee Daniels handles Precious' first person account. Daniels slips in between reality and fantasy throughout the narration and exposition of the film, to great effect. Even during the lowest moments of Precious' life (and boy, are they low), she is daydreaming about how it could be better. The dreams are vivid and somehow both far-fetched and realistic. What this allows Daniels to do is inject hope into an utterly hopeless situation without cheapening or watering down the story. I also appreciated the use of the handheld camera in certain situations to emphasize where Precious' focus was (although it tended to be distracting in parts).

The other distinctive feature of Precious is the realistic depiction of the moral ambiguity of the secondary characters. Daniels chooses not to paint the teacher and the social worker and the nurse as merely perfect selfless robots, but as normal people trapped in the system who happen to be performing extraordinary heroic acts on Precious' behalf. This ambiguity, personified especially by the performances of Paula Patton, Mariah Carey (yes, that Mariah Carey), and Lenny Kravitz (yes, that Lenny Kravitz) is what pushes Precious from good to great. 4.5/5

To say that An Education is a coming of age story almost does it a disservice. Yes, it's primarily about a 16 year-old girl's education (both on the street and in the classroom), but director Lone Scherfig accomplishes so much more than that. Scherfig tells a compelling story about Jenny's ill-advised romance with a much older man, and along the way manages to slip in commentary about the role that education plays in a patriarchal society without being distracting or overbearing.

Mostly, though, the film does examine the education Jenny receives from David. Their on-screen romance is awkward at best, but I think that's what makes the film work. Jenny was never really in love with David himself, but with the idea of being liberated and whisked away to France while her man-friend does his Eddie Haskell routine with her normally overbearing father.

I really enjoyed the treatment that Scherfig gives to Jenny's character. As she gets more and more wrapped up in her "adult" life, Jenny's surroudings, costumes, hair, demeanor, and disposition transform as well. It is clear that this experience has changed her. Is it for the better? The film almost lets you make that decision for yourself, but the ambiguity is lost in the terrible ending.

An Education is based on a true story. The real Jenny, Lynn Barber, wrote a short memoir about it, which can be found here (major spoilers). The film remains very truthful to Barber's account, but the ending takes her conclusions and goes in a completely different direction. Consider the following statement from Barber (spoiler, highlight to read):

What did I get from Simon? An education - the thing my parents always wanted me to have. I learned a lot in my two years with Simon. I learned about expensive restaurants and luxury hotels and foreign travel, I learned about antiques and Bergman films and classical music. All this was useful when I went to Oxford - I could read a menu, I could recognise a fingerbowl, I could follow an opera, I was not a complete hick. But actually there was a much bigger bonus than that. My experience with Simon entirely cured my craving for sophistication. By the time I got to Oxford, I wanted nothing more than to meet kind, decent, straightforward boys my own age, no matter if they were gauche or virgins. I would marry one eventually and stay married all my life and for that, I suppose, I have Simon to thank.

Why, then, does Jenny narrate that she'll act is if she'd never been to Paris? It seems as if the screenwriters are trying to insert a happy ending into a story that already has one, which to me killed all the emotional momentum the film had going for it. Still, up until that point An Education is a fantastic character study, and for that reason alone I recommend watching it. 4/5

At the end of Inglourious Basterds, one of the main characters looks at the screen and says, "This just might be my masterpiece." The implication, of course, is that the movie itself is Quentin Tarantino's masterpiece, an assertion that may actually be correct.

Tarantino's quirky fingerprints are all over IB, from the misspelled title (speculated to be accidental in this humorous post) to the film's complete (and obviously purposeful) lack of historical accuracy. These quirks are very off-putting to many, but as a QT apologist, I see the value in many of the oddball things he does. An example: In the very tense 21-minute opening scene, Colonel Hans Landa (superbly portrayed by Christoph Waltz, my pick for Best Actor) and Perrierr LaPadite are speaking in French (they are in France, after all) when Colonel Landa casually suggests that they switch to English. When watching it the first time, I inwardly groaned, thinking this was one of THOSE movies where the foreign characters speak English only so that American audiences won't complain about having to read subtitles. I should have known that this would end up being an important plot point, and it was. (Of course, it opens up a possible plot hole at the end; if you've seen the movie, think about the inserted scene in the theater.)

Overall, I think Tarantino uses his powers for good here. His over-the-top violent style actually seems quite perfect for the subject matter. Likewise, The double Mexican Standoff scene (another Tarantino trademark), while ridiculous, doesn't seem unnecessary and actually serves to move the plot along quite nicely while adding a layer of intrigue to the proceedings when the separate storylines start to intertwine.

This convergence of the seemingly very different stories is nothing short of masterful. The protagonists of each story never even meet, but they are kindred spirits in many ways. One, Shoshanna, is motivated by personal revenge, while the other, Lt. Aldo Raine, seems to be spurred on by a sense of justice (as well as a desire for scalps). Each faces significant obstacle to achieving their purpose, and while it may seem far-fetched that each has to go through Col. Landa to get there, the confrontations don't feel forced at all. In the end, both the effectiveness and futility of each character's actions are represented by the American Jews that stand on a balcony shooting at people who are dying in a theater fire anyway. In Tarantino's world, the final victory is both inevitable and completely dependent on the resolve of the major players. The resulting tension is profound.

I'm not sure that you could have planned for a greater irony than for this film to be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. Holocaust and other World War II flicks are invariably highly favored by the Academy, and Inglourious Basterds is as close to a parody of the genre as you can get while remaining respectful. Even so, it never feels like a parody. It is indeed a masterpiece. 5/5

There's a cliché that the judges on American Idol love to overuse: "S/he could sing the phone book and it would still be good." Well, I'm going to use a modified version of it at least one more time: The people at Pixar could make a movie about the phone book and it would still be compelling. Up wasn't the first Pixar movie I went into expecting a train wreck - I didn't really think a movie about a fish swimming across the ocean to find his lost son would be that compelling - but once again, I find myself in awe.

If you think about it, every single one of the Pixar films has at least one memorable scene that advances the plot without using a single spoken word, and I think that's what makes their films distinctive. In Up, they have perfected the art. Consider the following scene (it's from the first act, so there's no spoilers here):



That's not even the only important scene to utilize this technique. The adult Ellie has no lines, yet she's an important character all the way to the end.

There's plenty to be said about the words that are spoken as well. The characters that you don't expect to talk are maybe the funniest, and they provide comic relief at all the right times. This device in lesser hands would have been a serious detriment to the overall feel of the movie, but directors Pete Docter and Bob Peterson made sure that the silly elements didn't dominate.

Ultimately, Up is about how one man deals with grief, and while I'm typically skeptical of movies where everything is wrapped up neatly at the end, the storytelling here is so masterful that I don't think viewers should feel cheated. In fact, the inclusion of the stowaway and the relationship he develops with Carl makes it that much more believable, not to mention more relatable. Up is the first animated movie since Beauty and the Beast to be nominated for Best Picture, and the distinction is more than deserved. I can't think of another animated movie that's tried to do so much and succeeded. 5/5

First-time director Neill Blomkamp wants you to know that District 9 is an important movie. Nothing is more obvious in the first act of the film. If you didn't get the District 6 reference in the title, Blomkamp hits you over the head with repeated mentions of South Africa, then ups the ante by naming his protagonist van der Merwe (There's an entire genre of jokes in South Africa devoted to a bumbling idiot named van der Merwe - here's one example). The first 10 minutes skewers bureaucratic inadequacy and exposes human nature's xenophobic tendencies in no uncertain terms.

As the mockumentary structure advances the storyline, it becomes increasingly apparent that the audience is being set up for a huge bait-and-switch (minor spoilers ahead). Wikus van der Merwe's eventual victimization is fairly predictable, but the manner in which his rejection comes to be was a pleasant surprise to me. His somewhat Kafka-esque metamorphosis provides some of the more poignant and thought-provoking scenes of the film. The scene where Wikus' wife Tania calls him back - apparently after much deliberation; Blomkamp takes care to tell us plenty of time has passed - and accepts him despite his compromised state was a particularly touching scene.

However, the problem with that precise scene underscores the problem of the film of the whole - the story runs out of steam and starts to rely on action movie cliches. When watching the scene in question the first time, I was hung up on the idea that the phone call might be a trap set by fictional MNU to get a fix on the cell phone location. (Sorry to be so vague. If you've seen the movie, you understand that I'm trying to avoid spoiling too much.) In fact, MNU has not thought of this and is apparently resigned to spreading negative propaganda. The subsequent scenes resemble a capture the flag game that could have been in the Halo movie that Blomkamp and producer Peter Jackson were reportedly working on before moving on to District 9.

While the final act seems weak due to way too many last-second close calls, it could have been redeemed had the relationship between van der Merwe and Christopher Johnson been stronger. D9 tries to sell Wikus' final act as selfless and sacrificial, but given his repeated pleas to Johnson to "fix him," his transformation as a character rings false.

In light of this disappointing denouement, the promise of a cutting commentary on humanity that District 9 makes at the outset seems hollow. The effect is almost as if the two halves of the movie were written by two different people, which is entirely possible given the split screenwriting credit. I wrote this review once before deleting it and writing a more favorable review (it may not sound like it, but there's plenty to like here), but eventually I came back and rewrote the original one. I don't think it's overly harsh to be down on the movie as a whole because it doesn't live up to its own lofty expectations, especially when they're made so explicit as I outlined above. I look forward to a more experienced director remaking this movie in 20 years. A successful formula for the fictional future director living in my head would be to keep the first two-thirds of the story and then to take the ending in a completely different direction. Here's hoping. 3.5/5

This review contains minor spoilers. You've been warned.

Let's think about the standard components of a standard romantic comedy. Funny? Check. A girl teaches a guy to stop being selfish and open up to others? Check. Said guy realizes this important fact at the exact moment that he's about to achieve his life goal, resulting in him going silent, then bolting for the door and ignoring requests to stay, followed by a "running through the airport and getting to the gate just in time" scene so he can go see her? Oh yeah.

Up in the Air is without a doubt a romantic comedy on the surface. Go snorkeling a little bit, though, and you'll find that there's so much more.

At its very core, UitA has a philosophical question for you - is having and cultivating relationships worth the trouble, or is having that much weight on your shoulders holding you back - personally or professionally? It's not a unique question for Hollywood - the content itself doesn't differentiate itself from, say, The Family Man starring Nicolas Cage, but the execution in answering that question sets it apart.

How so? For me, the scene that forces the issue is the one in Detroit. They're testing they're new technological way of firing people, which results in an odd set-up where Ryan (George Clooney) and Natalie (Anna Kendrick) are firing people from the next room. Ryan, a man who believes in keeping people at a distance, has been resisting the changes because he knows that helping someone "transition" requires a personal touch, but he hasn't noticed the tension until now. In the moment where a just-fired distraught employee walks past their conference room, Ryan gets it. I love it when the moment of realization in a character study is palpable like this. The director, Jason Reitman, also did Juno and Thank You for Smoking, and this is exactly what makes those movies great as well. In each of these three movies, you can see the main characters cognitively recognize how they're supposed to change, and here's the rub: they never do it right away. Isn't it like that in real life? It takes some time to change your actions even after you've changed your belief system.

Of course, what this does is set up a cheesy moment like the one I mentioned at the beginning, with the running through the airport and all. If you haven't seen the movie and you've read this far, I've already ruined it for you anyway, so I don't mind telling you that this actually happens. This is the struggle that I have with UitA: it was an amazing character study. All three characters did brilliantly. For the most part, the narrative structure was tight and purposeful. But it seemed like Reitman didn't know how to end it. The twist at the end was believable, but lazy. MAJOR SPOILER (highlight to read): Sure, the fact that Alex had a real family allowed her to say that line about Ryan being her escape from real life, but then why did she agree to go to the wedding? A better plot line would have been for her to have several other "escapes" that she encountered on the road. And let's not forget the gigantic elephant in the room: product placement. Call me a purist, but that was way too much. Overall, I really liked Up in the Air, but it suffered from some fatal flaws that make me wonder why it was nominated for Best Picture. 4/5

I will be reviewing all of the Best Picture nominees in the days leading up to the Academy Awards on Sunday, March 7, just as I did last year. (You can find those reviews by clicking "Academy Awards" under "Labels" to the right.)

It would be very easy to pigeon-hole Avatar as a movie that is heavy on special effects with a story that seems to be borrowed from other well-known works. I did that very thing with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button last year. While that description would not necessarily be untrue for Avatar, I don't think it's fair.

First, let's talk about special effects, which almost seems like a misnomer. Effects implies that something was added in post-production, and nothing could be further from the truth here. According the The New Yorker (link NSFW - language), Avatar is "the first big-budget action blockbuster [shot] in 3-D." James Cameron wrote the script in 1994, but the technology wasn't good enough to actually shoot the idea. It wasn't until he saw Gollum on screen in one of the LOTR movies that he was convinced that the technology was ready, and even then he basically had to invent his own camera to accomplish what he did.

The result is absolutely breathtaking. Cameron is quoted as saying (back in early 2007!), "Ideally at the end of the day the audience has no idea which they're looking at," and in my opinion, he accomplished just that. There were only a couple of instances in the entire 162 minutes that didn't ring true to me, but those were very easily overlooked. (An example would be at about 2:56 of this video, where one Avatar pushes another and it just doesn't look quite right - understand that I'm really nitpicking here.) Have I said enough about the technical achievement yet? If you haven't seen it, go watch it in 3-D at the theater while you still can. This will probably be the first movie that's done an injustice by putting it on Blu-ray.

The vast majority of the criticisms I've heard about Avatar concern the story. Let me summarize them for you: it's not completely original. A simple internet search led me to comparisons of Dances with Wolves, Delgo, Dune, FernGully, The Last Samurai, Pocahontas, and many, many others. While it is true that Avatar and several of these movies share common archetypes, I don't think that this really diminishes the story arc at all. Cameron's screenplay challenges militarism and ethnocentricism (among many other topics), and since we apparently aren't getting the message, I'm okay with stories that attempt to engage these topics in a fresh way. If anything, the message is a little heavy-handed. Note to Mr. Cameron: Using the phrase "shock and awe" is the opposite of subtlety.

My quibbles with Avatar concern more of the same problems that affect other Hollywood blockbusters: too many shallow characters (especially Col. Quaritch and Trudy), cheesy one-liners, monologues given by the bad guys before they die, and plot twists that exist solely to justify more explosions. In a regular action flick, it's easy to overlook these flaws, but not in this case, at least not for me. Avatar aspires to be included among the Pantheon of Great Movies, and while I certainly agree that it will go down in history as a hugely influential work, it falls short of being an all-time great. 4.5/5.

Over the past several days, I've been providing you with my own personal reviews of all of this year's Best Picture nominees. They are ranked below. These are preferences, not predictions, and you can click on the name of each film to read its review.

I believe that Slumdog Millionaire is far and away the best film out of the five nominees. Milk and Frost/Nixon were both very compelling, but suffered from structural flaws. I can't help but think that there were other more worthy nominees than The Reader or Benjamin Button. I find it interesting that each story is told through flashbacks. This is certainly not a new literary device, but I wonder if we might see more movies in the coming months utilizing them as a response.




Winner: Slumdog Millionaire
Milk
Frost/Nixon
The Reader
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Technically speaking, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is quite an accomplishment. It is first and foremost a film about visual effects. The job that the special effects people did with Brad Pitt is nothing short of amazing. I am usually very critical of CGI; many a movie experience has been ruined for me because I can't get over, for example, how corny the Hulk looks when he's jumping across the desert. In this case, I was blown away. The line between actor and animation is even more blurred than it was before this film. I have to believe that the groundbreaking nature of Button is what got it nominated for so many awards, because I don't think the rest of it was that great.

The story was compelling enough - except that it wasn't about anything. Screenwriter Eric Roth adapted F. Scott Fitzgerald's short story, which is to say that he took the idea of a man aging backwards and his name and went in the complete opposite direction. The story is a comedy, while the movie tries desperately to be a serious drama. Roth could have examined Benjamin's condition in so many compelling ways, but instead settles for an awkward love story and a silly gimmick with a hummingbird. Much has been made of the similarity between Button and Roth's other major screenwriting accomplishment, Forrest Gump. I have included the following humorous video to highlight that fact:

I really wanted to like this film, but it started to drag about an hour of the way through. It was simply too long. However, I am giving it a positive rating because of the quality of the special effects work. 3/5 stars.

Depending on the point of view, The Reader is one of two movies. To some, it is a romantic tragedy. The love that Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet) and Michael Berg (David Kross when young, Ralph Fiennes when old) share can never be, whether its because of their age disparity (the whole affair starts when Schmitz is 32-ish and Berg is 15) or because of Schmitz's unfortunate incarceration. To others, the story is an invitation to reevaluate the Holocaust from a different point of view. Because the audience identifies with Schmitz, the big reveal that she was a guard at Auschwitz almost forces the watcher to reconsider what he thinks about her role in that travesty.

The problem is that TR desperately wants to be both of those movies at once, but its not strong enough to bear the weight of it all. The film is about 30 minutes too long, and if you believe in The Reader: The Romantic Tragedy, it's the cumbersome court scenes in the middle that get in the way, while if The Reader: Holocaust Edition is more your cup of tea, the courtroom drama represents the crux on which the entire story hangs. I tend to subscribe to the latter line of thinking, and even though I believe some important questions were asked here (What do we make of the "I was just doing my job" defense, and what about people today that could say the same thing? Guantanomo, anyone?), I still thought the script was a little heavy-handed and in your face. Young Berg's impromptu visit to an abandoned concentration camp seemed gratuitous, to say the least, and I was a little insulted by the way his classmate was utilized to sway the audience's opinion.

Then, of course, there is the excessive level of sexuality. I was watching TR on my laptop, and for the first 30 minutes I was afraid that Jodi would walk in and think I was looking at porn. It's that ridiculous. I understand that the intense connection between the two leads had to be established, but after a period of time I found myself thinking variations of the following:

"Does Kate Winslet have to be naked the minute she walks in the door?"
"She hates clothes!"
"She sure takes a lot of baths for someone who's supposed to be poor in the 50's."

I probably wouldn't be so skeptical, but the only trailer I've ever seen for this film was one where the producers were clearly trying to draw people to the theater based on the sexual content involved.

Nevertheless, The Reader is a very beautiful movie. It is wonderfully acted by almost the entire cast (the lone exception being the aforementioned classmate), and the soundtrack is just about perfect. I am slowly becoming convinced of Kate Winslet's acting prowess. Because I was so taken by the production in this film, I am probably giving it about 1/2 a star too much. 3.5/5 stars.

I knew going in to watch Milk that it was a social film; a biopic about an individual who had accomplished something groundbreaking in civil rights, so I knew what to expect, and I got it. Milk feels like a movie you've seen before, but it does have its own unique qualities. Director Gus Van Sant and writer Dustin Lance Black made several choices about the format of the film that both distinguishes Milk from other similar films and establishes its place among the pantheon of well-made movies about civil rights and liberties.

Some of these liberties work very well. The cinematography is excellent. Real footage from the 1970s is seamlessly blended into the story, and the camera's use of mirrors in pivotal situations is terrific. (If you've seen the film, think of the scene with the whistle. Brilliant.) I thought the portrayal of the secondary characters was also very well done. The political supporters that surrounded Harvey Milk had depth and were not merely portrayed as sheep, which would have been an easy thing to fall back on. Harvey's uneasy relationship with political rival and fellow supervisor Dan White was very humanizing to both characters, which made the final ambiguity of Milk hard to ignore. Finally, Sean Penn's performance is amazing. His portrayal of Harvey Milk made him come to life on the screen and made the story very believable and accessible.

On the other hand, the movie is not without its problems. Milk cannot decide which vehicle it will use to drive the story along. Harvey Milk's dictation of his will (only to be heard if he is assassinated) is the main device that keeps the action moving, but sometimes news broadcasts, subtitles, or even short musical montages provide the transitions. It's all very distracting and inconsistent. And why in the world was the news clip announcing his assassination included at the beginning? It seemed like a clever attempt at foreshadowing, but felt like a mistake.

Despite all this, Milk is a very well-made film and a timely commentary on the state of homosexual advances in society. One cannot ignore the parallels between the 1970s Proposition 6 and Proposition 8 of 2008. I'm sure opponents of that bill wish that it had been released before this year's election, but I think that would have cheapened the movie's value and made it seem like a big political commercial made just for 2008. As it is, Milk stands on its own, just like its namesake. 4.5/5 stars

What sets Frost/Nixon apart from other Nixon biopics is that it is sympathetic to the former president. That is not to say that it exonerates or panders to him. It doesn't. But the mere fact that Peter Morgan (writer) and Ron Howard (director) are willing to explore the "other" side of Nixon go a long way toward making this a great movie. Most films about the man will face comparisons to Oliver Stone's 1995 film, and F/N stands up to it because of its perspective. The protagonist is in many ways a foil to Nixon, and so it is in Frost's reflection that we are able to understand what drove the former president to make his landmark confession.

I was not a huge fan of the format of F/N. From the beginning, the story is told in documentary-style, which only underscores the talkative nature of the piece. The story is about an interview itself, so why burden the slow-moving plot even more with interjections from the characters explaining what is going on? In my mind, they were more interruptions that transitions. In fact, the first hour or so seemed like just a really good documentary, like the type you may see on the History Channel, just with better acting and a bigger budget.

The film picks up right about the time that Richard M. Nixon drunk-dials Frost in his hotel room. (No, really.) The moment is a result of the painstaking lengths Howard takes to establish the two main characters. They are the opposite of each other, yet they find common ground in their respective conundrums. At this point, I was able forgive F/N for dragging its feet, because the pay-off is well worth it. Nixon's ultimate confession and apology (er, statement of regret?) is one that people who lived through that era remember and history students know well, but it is seen through fresh eyes here because of the circumstances surrounding it. By knowing the interviewer, the interviewee's admission is much more poignant.

That poignancy could not have been displayed without the superior acting skills of Frank Langella (Nixon) and Michael Sheen (Frost). Their performances are augmented by a terrific supporting cast, especially that of Sam Rockwell (James Reston). While I don't totally agree with Ron Howard's choice regarding the overall style of the piece, I was glad for his presence. His fingerprints are all over this movie, and that's only a good thing for a handful of current Hollywood directors. Without his direction, this would not be one of the better biopics in recent memory. 4.5/5 stars.

It is now 5 days until the 81st Academy Awards are presented. Every day until then, I will review one of the films nominated for Best Picture. On Sunday, I'll do a recap and choose which of the nominees I believe is most deserving. There are possible spoilers here, but I've done my best not to ruin the film.

Slumdog Millionaire is widely considered by the media, and more importantly, Nate Silver, to be the favorite to take home Best Picture on Sunday. I knew this going in, which is usually a bad thing for my enjoyment factor - if I expect good things from a flick, I am likely to be let down. My theology professor Randy Harris would say, "Low expectations, few disappointments." Yet despite my raised level of expectation, SM was a great joy to experience. In other words, I have very little negative to say about this movie.

Like its title, Slumdog Millionaire is a study in contrast. Protagonist Jamal Malik's slumdog-ishness is established in the presence of a Bollywood star and even in settings such as the Taj Mahal and (of course) the set of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" It is in the live broadcast of this game show that the fundamental question, "What can a slumdog possibly know?" is initially asked, and in the police station where Malik is interrogated that it is answered. (The answer is, "The answers.") The story is driven by the game show, but the background story of how Malik knows these answers is what makes this movie the great commentary that it is.

It would have been easy for any film tackling the subject of poverty and oppression in India to fall into pretentiousness and get preachy, and indeed many have done just that. SM, though, makes no pretense at all. It is predictable. If you don't know what the million dollar question will be by the midpoint of the film, you haven't watched many movies at all. In fact, the movie practically tells you from the beginning that yes, there will be a happy ending, but no, it won't be an easy journey. The beauty is that Boyle is able to balance this typical Hollywood/Bollywood formula with the dissonance that pervades the film. There is a prevailing attitude that slumdogs such as Jamal shouldn't know things, or for that matter, have a shot at romantic love. There are so many levels here (Jamal vs. his brother Salim, Jamal & Salim vs. the men that run the orphanage, etc. etc.), but I want to leave you to find some of them on your own.

The only criticism I have been able to come up with (and I have tried) is based on a plot device. In order to make the story work, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" was broadcast in real time, meaning the "Phone A Friend" lifeline could have been severely abused. Also, it is my understanding that in real life the show is taped. If that really bothers you, I understand, but it doesn't really affect my enjoyment of the movie.

I've been speaking solely of plot elements and storytelling devices, but to neglect SM's production value would be a crime. The editing is tight, the cinematography is beautiful, and the score is beyond excellent. The story is basically told in 3 stages of Malik's life, so that means the 3 main characters, Jamal, Salim, and Jamal's love interest, Latika, are each portrayed by 3 actors. All 9 do a wonderful job, especially Dev Patel (older Jamal), Ayush Mahesh Khedekar (younger Jamal), and Tanvi Ganesh Lonkar (middle Latika). Overall, I believe storytelling is its greatest strength, which should speak volumes. The story of 2 Indias is one that is not told often enough, and it is told masterfully here. 5/5 stars.